Scalar Inversion of Movement-Countermovements: A Case Study of Pro- and Anti-Immigrant Mobilizing in the United States

This paper examines how opposing social movements have adopted inverse scalar organizational infrastructures structures. It does so through the case of pro- and anti-immigrant activism in Southern California during the late 2010s (response to the Trump Administration). Though both sides were embedded in the same multi-level jurisdictional field, they adopted inverted scalar organizational infrastructures. The anti-immigrant side adopted a highly centralized organizational structure characterized by a handful of resource rich organizations located mostly in Washington D.C., strong coordination between federal officials and national organizations, weak local and mostly informal organizations, and top-down coordination between national leaders (officials and organizations) and local elected officials in conservative municipalities and counties. By contrast, the pro-immigrant side experienced some degree of centralization during the early 2010s, but national organizations played a marginal role in mobilizations against the Trump Administration. Instead, large regional organizations with statewide reach – mostly located in Los Angeles – coordinated campaigns with smaller organizations in municipalities across the state. Thus, the opposing sides adopted inverted scalar organizational infrastructures: one characterized by high centralization and weak territorialization and the other characterized by multi-nodal regional territorialization. Scalar inversion was, we suggest, the result of strategies that responded to a multi-level jurisdictional field that presented markedly different threats, opportunities, and barriers. For the pro-immigrant side, the objective was to create territorial ramparts to protect undocumented immigrant residents from draconian federal policies. The territorial ramparts consisted of "sanctuary policies" passed at state, county, and municipal levels. As there were no political opportunities at the federal level, advocacy organizations moved into sub-national jurisdictions, employing the resources and capabilities of regional organizations in Los Angeles to build statewide and local coalitions. The territorialization of the organizational infrastructure enabled the pro-immigrant side to pass a range of sanctuary and pro-immigrant policies across subnational levels and jurisdictions of government. The anti-immigrant side employed a pincer strategy to counteract state and local defensive ramparts. Having almost no political allies in the state government, anti-immigrant forces employed federal-level institutions and resources to attack California’s newly enacted sanctuary law (Values Act) from above and below. From above, the Justice Department sued to nullify California’s sanctuary law and national-level advocacy organizations mobilized conservative municipal and county officials to sign the lawsuits "amicus brief". From below, Trump allies (congressional representatives and national organizations) encouraged conservative municipalities (especially in Orange County) to pass ordinances to opt out of the Values Act and mount lawsuits against the state of California. Organizational centralization enabled anti-immigrant forces to mount a pincer strategy to block the state’s sanctuary law and dissuade progressive local officials from passing their own sanctuary policies. Thus, both sides mobilized to achieve competing objectives in a multi-level jurisdictional field, which precipitated contrasting strategies. Whereas the pro-immigrant side sought use state and local advantages to build territorial ramparts, the anti-immigrant side sought to break down those territorial defenses from above (federally coordinated lawsuit) and below (local ordinances and lawsuits).